Hacker News Reader

Comment by uk_programmer | Hacker News Reader

As someone that used to be an avid cyclist. Disc brakes are almost completely pointless for commuter bicycles. Don't get me wrong they are great when mountain biking (I have cable discs on my mountain bike). On a commuter bike they are mostly just overkill IMHO. But I wouldn't buy a carbon road bike either (All my bikes are steel framed).

View on HN

I'm a year-round bike commuter, and I really appreciate those disc brakes when I'm biking in heavier rain. Don't underestimate how much better they work than rim brakes in adverse weather conditions.

I'd say it's just the other way around; disc brakes are most useful for commuters, and least useful for dedicated race bikes, because you just don't go out racing when it's raining a lot (and you're typically on a closed course besides so there's less braking).

I live in the UK and rim brakes are fine in even heavy rain. What they are not fine with is mud and grit on the rim.

I do use a touring bike (basically a racing bike that isn't quite as aggressive) and I've ridden that all year round.

Disc brakes are almost completely pointless for commuter bicycles

Ignore this comment. Year-round commuting is the prime reason to buy a bike with disc brakes. Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter? Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?

Anyone want to go back to drum brakes on their “commuter” car? Yeah, didn’t think so.

I have short-reach dual pivot brake calipers on a bike which sees >2000 miles year-round each year in NYC, and my rims are still fine after 7 years.

From my experience, stopping distance is usually dictated by road conditions more than the brakes. This is with 34mm wide tires, and properly adjusted brakes (a lot of times when people complain about rim brakes, the issue is that they are not working properly).

Side note: fenders are a must!

Sure and the point is discs will much more easily stop you, the limit of the stopping power is not the brake (friction on rim) like they are in cantilevers, but with the overall physics of the system. Discs are generally in alignment, or very very obviously out of alignment (rubbing loudly), canti's have a lot more room for error.

I'd much rather have a brake system that out performs the rest of the equation than not have enough stopping power.

In Seattle, I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

> I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

This really says it all. When I am cycling to work, I am not trying out for the tour de france or trying to beat someone else's strava record.

> Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

It doesn't matter if they are inferior. My regular disc brakes on my Ford Focus is inferior in every way compared to whatever they put on a Ferrari. However they are perfectly is sufficient and safe for driving to work and back.

The best argument you can make for discs vs traditional rim brakes would be that the modulation is slightly better.

It really annoys me that a lot of cyclists seem to push very expensive kit that for the commuter is completely unnecessary.

> Ignore this comment.

Why because you don't agree with it?

> Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter?

I dunno how you are doing this. A set of brake pads last quite a while usually. I have rims from the 1990s I am still using.

> Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?

Your stopping distance is more about how much grip you got on the road from the tyres. You can easily lock the wheel with a rim brake, especially if you have a good set of dual pivot or V-brakes.

For commuting you don't need anything flashy or complicated (because it will be a magnet for thieves). I literally get a basic but decent bike. If the parts are basic and ubiquitous you can go to any bike shop and get it repaired or by the parts yourself. If you have fancy equipment, then it more difficult to buy a replacement.

When I was commuting on the bike still, I used an old 90s mountain bike with V-brakes and I converted it to Single Speed (the gears were knackered) and stuck some touring tyres on there. However I was cycling in Manchester which is mostly flat. It really depends where you are.

I commute year round in Germany and never had to replace my rims because of wear. They last years until I hit a curb too hard with barely any wear. Maybe it's different in other climates?

As someone who rides 2k miles a year in seattle for multiple years your attitude is why I had to pay through the nose and do all sorts of custom crap to have a decent braking solution that didn't eat my rims and worked well on steep hills and the oily wet on the rims. I'm glad that discs are finally taking over, even if it's 10 years after they should have because "they're not tour legal".

Yeah if you're commuting in the rain or with lots of hills then disc brakes are definitely worth it. But if neither of those apply to you, they're probably not a good use of money, especially considering it still costs quite a lot to get good quality hydraulic disc brakes.

Mechanical discs are pretty cheap now and quite effective. I've had both. They're all better than canti-s

I cycled approximately 5000 kilometers per year (cycling to work + over the weekends), also through hilly terrain. I have never had my brakes eat my rims.

Also, even if they did. Replacing a 800 Euro bike once per two years is peanuts compared to owning a car or taking public transport.

Good for you, does that somehow make my experience invalid? No it's a YMMV which is why discs are important to me.

Replacing a 2k usd bike every 2 years in addition to paying for car while I try to work into cycling is a big cost. I'm a big person, I've had pretty much every rim but velocity touring rims fail due to weight and stress, and rim brakes made this worse and fail faster, it's also real shady to have a rim crack while you're riding it. Discs completely remove that from the equation.

I would get rim brakes over another set of cable disc brakes. I recently got a gravel bike as my "go anywhere" bike, and the cable disc brakes are absolute garbage, constantly going out of adjustment and rubbing, making noise, or just being ineffective. As a contrast, my hydraulics on my mountain bike are absolutely fine with minimal work, just a flush every year and changing the pads when they wear down.

I had shitty cable disc brakes before. With the same complaints. I Replaced them with TRP Spyke brakes and all of that went away. I'll never lose another perfectly good wheel to rim wear. But I can see how that is a secondary concern.

TRPs are so good and so cheap. I rode Shimano XT for years, and the TRP is the only thing I’ve experienced that is better quality and more reliable while not being outlandishly expensive. Super happy with them!

Cable discs, while better than rims, still suck. I feel unsafe riding anything but hydraulics, even on the road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com